logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.12.17 2013나5521
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant C, Defendant C and each of the Plaintiff KRW 71,178,082 and KRW 62,00,000 among them.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in paragraph 1, except for the following parts of the basic facts:

[Supplementary part] The second part of the third part is composed of “Defendant B and C” as “B and Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Husband and wife”).

The Defendants in Part 3 of the third side "the above Defendants" shall be raised to "the Defendant couple".

Defendant B and C shall be put into “Defendant B and C” in Part 4 of the third side.

Defendant B and C shall be described as “Defendant B and C”, respectively, of the 3rd 7 and 10 pages.

Defendant B and C shall be put into “Defendant B and E” in Part 15 of the third side.

Defendant B shall be put into “B” in Part 16 of the third side.

Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 1 shall be raised as follows:

B. As a result of the judgment, the Defendant couple received KRW 100,000,00 from the Plaintiff jointly with E as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) and was sentenced to each conviction of the said money (hereinafter referred to as the act of defraudation of this case, and the said money was acquired) (Supreme Court Decision 2012Ra21 Decided December 21, 2012, Chungcheong District Court Decision 2012No641 Decided February 7, 2013, 201), and the said judgment became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2940 Decided April 26, 2013, 201).

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. According to the facts based on the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C and each of the Plaintiff are obliged to pay KRW 100,000,000 equivalent to the amount of the fraud of this case and delay damages, barring any special circumstance.

B. Defendant C asserts that the return of illegal consideration for illegal consideration is not possible as long as the Plaintiff paid the money acquired through deception to himself/herself for the purpose of serving as the original timber.

However, as seen in the basic facts, it is the defendant couple, etc., and the plaintiff belongs to the defendant couple.

arrow